I think both sides are correct. AI will be still around a decade and centuries from now, and AI poses great risks. The real question is, “Who controls it?”
Hopefully the students do not try to destroy the loom, but instead try to make sure that they are so common and easy to use, that corporations do not have genuine control over the usage of AI. Every minority should have a digital lawyer that has 95% of the ability of Disney’s, to protect people from Kavenaugh Stops. Every poor person should be able to manage their finances just as well as the most blueblooded billionaire. Every household should own a home server and a robot, leasing their usage to corporations. Those corporations shouldn’t own the AI nor robots.
What I am saying, is that we should structure society to ensure that the worst people are not our masters forevermore. Their goal is to control the means of production, and to remove our lives from the process. Both figuratively AND literally.
I agree with your first statement. The conundrum of who controls it is more important than anything else at this point.
I find your comment about students destroying the loom misplaced and misinformed. I am guessing you are referring to the myth of the luddites. Of course the reality is they were never against the machines, but they were against being displaced by machines without compensation. Below are their demands.
"The establishment of a minimum wage to ensure workers could sustain their families despite changing production method.
The provision of work or compensation for skilled artisans and craftsmen who had been displaced by automated machinery.
The regulation and limitation of child and women’s labor in early industrial factories.
The legal right to form trade unions, which were outlawed at the time, to collectively bargain and advocate for improved working conditions.
Opposition to deceitfully manufactured, inferior goods that were being mass-produced on automated"
I like your optimism about LLM doctors and lawyers. Unfortunately with an error rate that can sometimes approach 60% along with hallucinations LLM AI is far from ready and would cause far more problems than it would solve.
You are absolutely correct that corporations shouldn’t own AI. If AI is to ever be useful and not purely a propaganda/advertising machine then corporations should not be in control of the models.
I appreciate your lofty goal of eliminating the worst people from being our masters. Unfortunately, the worst people already are in control of AI and it will likely end up just the opposite of your wishes. A tool to keep the worst people as masters.
I am aware that the wealthy already have control of AI, but that grasp isn’t firm yet. That is why it is important for people to start thinking about policy and implementation now, rather than letting the elite to shape the narrative.
As to optimism, AI is an technology, and it is improving quickly. Eventually, local AI will be able to fit into our phones, and be superior in quality and speed to what I have on my PC*. We should try to initiate an endeavor to make AI available to everyone. For example, Switzerland is working on Apertus, a sovereign AI model for themselves. The development of libre AI is extremely important for sustaining democracy, because it will become a fundamental tool for any modern society.
*A 5950x CPU, 128gb DDR4, 4090, and 3060. I can run 120b models on this aged but fairly powerful machine. Two years ago, on the same PC specs, 70b AI at best, with much inferior quality and speed. It used to take an hour to get output that I receive in minutes now.
No, we do not need to “structure society” around proliferating LLM chatbot girlfriends and robot butlers in order to have socialism. Fuck off with this “people’s techbro” horseshit.
Your position is bad, because it ensures the worst outcome. AI is just one form of power, that evil people will gladly make use of. Either we make it so that society in general understand and is able to control it, or simply allow a group of evil people to obtain sole mastery over the technology.
Say for example if conservatives were the only people with guns, while minorities of all kinds refused to have weapons. Who do you think will end up being bullied, enslaved, and slaughtered? AI is that question, but for economics.
The reason why I push for every household to have a home server and robot, is to prevent an accumulation of power. If governments and corporations had to receive industrial power from citizens, that makes them much more beholdened to democracy and following the will of the people.
I think both sides are correct. AI will be still around a decade and centuries from now, and AI poses great risks. The real question is, “Who controls it?”
Hopefully the students do not try to destroy the loom, but instead try to make sure that they are so common and easy to use, that corporations do not have genuine control over the usage of AI. Every minority should have a digital lawyer that has 95% of the ability of Disney’s, to protect people from Kavenaugh Stops. Every poor person should be able to manage their finances just as well as the most blueblooded billionaire. Every household should own a home server and a robot, leasing their usage to corporations. Those corporations shouldn’t own the AI nor robots.
What I am saying, is that we should structure society to ensure that the worst people are not our masters forevermore. Their goal is to control the means of production, and to remove our lives from the process. Both figuratively AND literally.
I agree with your first statement. The conundrum of who controls it is more important than anything else at this point.
I find your comment about students destroying the loom misplaced and misinformed. I am guessing you are referring to the myth of the luddites. Of course the reality is they were never against the machines, but they were against being displaced by machines without compensation. Below are their demands.
"The establishment of a minimum wage to ensure workers could sustain their families despite changing production method.
The provision of work or compensation for skilled artisans and craftsmen who had been displaced by automated machinery.
The regulation and limitation of child and women’s labor in early industrial factories.
The legal right to form trade unions, which were outlawed at the time, to collectively bargain and advocate for improved working conditions.
Opposition to deceitfully manufactured, inferior goods that were being mass-produced on automated"
I like your optimism about LLM doctors and lawyers. Unfortunately with an error rate that can sometimes approach 60% along with hallucinations LLM AI is far from ready and would cause far more problems than it would solve.
You are absolutely correct that corporations shouldn’t own AI. If AI is to ever be useful and not purely a propaganda/advertising machine then corporations should not be in control of the models.
I appreciate your lofty goal of eliminating the worst people from being our masters. Unfortunately, the worst people already are in control of AI and it will likely end up just the opposite of your wishes. A tool to keep the worst people as masters.
I am aware that the wealthy already have control of AI, but that grasp isn’t firm yet. That is why it is important for people to start thinking about policy and implementation now, rather than letting the elite to shape the narrative.
As to optimism, AI is an technology, and it is improving quickly. Eventually, local AI will be able to fit into our phones, and be superior in quality and speed to what I have on my PC*. We should try to initiate an endeavor to make AI available to everyone. For example, Switzerland is working on Apertus, a sovereign AI model for themselves. The development of libre AI is extremely important for sustaining democracy, because it will become a fundamental tool for any modern society.
*A 5950x CPU, 128gb DDR4, 4090, and 3060. I can run 120b models on this aged but fairly powerful machine. Two years ago, on the same PC specs, 70b AI at best, with much inferior quality and speed. It used to take an hour to get output that I receive in minutes now.
No, we do not need to “structure society” around proliferating LLM chatbot girlfriends and robot butlers in order to have socialism. Fuck off with this “people’s techbro” horseshit.
Your position is bad, because it ensures the worst outcome. AI is just one form of power, that evil people will gladly make use of. Either we make it so that society in general understand and is able to control it, or simply allow a group of evil people to obtain sole mastery over the technology.
Say for example if conservatives were the only people with guns, while minorities of all kinds refused to have weapons. Who do you think will end up being bullied, enslaved, and slaughtered? AI is that question, but for economics.
The reason why I push for every household to have a home server and robot, is to prevent an accumulation of power. If governments and corporations had to receive industrial power from citizens, that makes them much more beholdened to democracy and following the will of the people.